• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

Page 29 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
By riders who are nowhere near the same talent level...
That's a good point. Ryder's time yesterday was a minute off Pantani's, but Pantani was a legendary climber, one of the best ever, and his hematocrit level was 52%.

Strong tailwind is a decent excuse though. Shame Ryder didn't have a power meter.
 
goggalor said:
That's a good point. Ryder's time yesterday was a minute off Pantani's, but Pantani was a legendary climber, one of the best ever, and his hematocrit level was 52%.

Strong tailwind is a decent excuse though. Shame Ryder didn't have a power meter.

there is pretty much always tailwind there,it was also on the other ascents.
only 3 guys climbed pampeago faster than ryder:il pirata,tonkov and gibo simoni(by little)

he was the strongest climber of this edition by far,well deserved winner.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
goggalor said:
That's a good point. Ryder's time yesterday was a minute off Pantani's, but Pantani was a legendary climber, one of the best ever, and his hematocrit level was 52%.

Strong tailwind is a decent excuse though. Shame Ryder didn't have a power meter.

On Pampeago, Hesjedal attacked at about 2.4km to go, Hesjedal was following Scarponi and Basso until then and there is a clear tail wind.

I haven't timed or measured it, but quoted in this thread Hesjedal's last 5km were 17:29 at 1884 vm/h...applying ferrari's formula and assuming 11% thats 6.07W/kg, with a tailwind, and riding in wheels for half the time.

Riding in wheels Horner held 5.9W/kg Tourmalet 2010, while riding in a group, pace being set by Sorenson at 6.6W/kg. This was at an average of 23.5kph. Hesjedal averaged 17.2kph, so the same savings wouldn't be available, but certainly something is.

Alarm bells are not ringing. (This doesn't mean I believe Ryder to be clean, just on this performance he hasn't rung any alarm bells, maybe rasied an eyebrow, which is more common these days)
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
Skibby the bush kangaroo said:
Hesjedal up Pampeago in 24 minutes 58 seconds (my timing, and RAI on twitter gave same time). RAI made it VAM of 1810 (implying they think the last climb is 753m of ascent) - though the profile says 765 m. Either way his W/kg is somewhere around 6.5.

VAM of 1810 on a slope of 10%...by ferrari that is 6.0, and we know there was a tail wind.
and using analytical cycling with a CdA of .5, and rider weight of 63 and a 7kg bike, then we get 6.1W/kg
 
karlboss said:
VAM of 1810 on a slope of 10%...by ferrari that is 6.0, and we know there was a tail wind.
and using analytical cycling with a CdA of .5, and rider weight of 63 and a 7kg bike, then we get 6.1W/kg

I was not watching very closely, but would have noticed a naked and shoeless
cyclist, no doubt:D

now, if the length was 7700 m, alt gain 753m, that is 9.78%, not 10%

A 63 kg racer will carry 7kg bike plus about 1.5 kg uphill, about 71.5 kg.

His CdA is likely to be about 0.375 (0.75 time 0.5 on analyticcycling).

air density, quite probably 1.03 g/cm^3 on average.

If time was 24:58, then v=7700/1498 = 5.14 m/s

and analytic cycling gives 6.39 watts/kg.(I have added 2.5% corresponding to transmission losses not accounted for in analytic cycling)

With no wind 6.39 would reduce to 5.96 watts/kg.

Now, I know next to nothing about that climb and what corrections need to be made for drafting, etc.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
I was not watching very closely, but would have noticed a naked and shoeless
cyclist, no doubt:D

now, if the length was 7700 m, alt gain 753m, that is 9.78%, not 10%

A 63 kg racer will carry 7kg bike plus about 1.5 kg uphill, about 71.5 kg.

His CdA is likely to be about 0.375 (0.75 time 0.5 on analyticcycling).

air density, quite probably 1.03 g/cm^3 on average.

If time was 24:58, then v=7700/1498 = 5.14 m/s

and analytic cycling gives 6.39 watts/kg.(I have added 2.5% corresponding to transmission losses not accounted for in analytic cycling)

With no wind 6.39 would reduce to 5.96 watts/kg.

Now, I know next to nothing about that climb and what corrections need to be made for drafting, etc.

Cheers I used the defaults and rounded. Using your numbers I got 380 watts + 2.5% is 389. Body weight is 63 so 6.18...no?

What is your no wind calculation?
thanks
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Visit site
karlboss said:
Cheers I used the defaults and rounded. Using your numbers I got 380 watts + 2.5% is 389. Body weight is 63 so 6.18...no?

What is your no wind calculation?
thanks

Are all these calculations supposed to be for Ryder? If so he doesn't weigh 63kg.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
function said:
Are all these calculations supposed to be for Ryder? If so he doesn't weigh 63kg.

W/kg based on VAM, shouldn't really matter. It's all inaccurate enough as it is. Via Ferrari's method it doesn't matter at all. By Analytical cycling it won't matter much. The power will be very different the power /weight won't be
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
FWIW Vaughters has said that their top riders in GT form test at 5.8 W/kg fresh, but are closer to 5.65 W/kg fatigued. Interesting that the power estimates are well above that.
 
goggalor said:
FWIW Vaughters has said that their top riders in GT form test at 5.8 W/kg fresh, but are closer to 5.65 W/kg fatigued. Interesting that the power estimates are well above that.

FWIW, Vaugters produced in the neighbourhood of 6.3 watts/kg during the 56:50 it took him to climb Ventoux from Bédoin in the 99 Dauphiné TT, well ahead of L.A.

This is not my own calculation but Portoleau-Vayer calculation for Moncoutié who finished 1:41 behind Vaughters. I just neglected second order effects and multiplied the Moncoutié 423watts/69kg by the ratio of their respective velocities (58.517/56.83 = 1.03 )
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
FWIW, Vaugters produced in the neighbourhood of 6.3 watts/kg during the 56:50 it took him to climb Ventoux from Bédoin in the 99 Dauphiné TT, well ahead of L.A.

This is not my own calculation but Portoleau-Vayer calculation for Moncoutié who finished 1:41 behind Vaughters. I just neglected second order effects and multiplied the Moncoutié 423watts/69kg by the ratio of their respective velocities (58.517/56.83 = 1.03 )

Armstrong has claimed he held 495 watts for over 30 minutes.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
Le breton said:
FWIW, Vaugters produced in the neighbourhood of 6.3 watts/kg during the 56:50 it took him to climb Ventoux from Bédoin in the 99 Dauphiné TT, well ahead of L.A.

This is not my own calculation but Portoleau-Vayer calculation for Moncoutié who finished 1:41 behind Vaughters. I just neglected second order effects and multiplied the Moncoutié 423watts/69kg by the ratio of their respective velocities (58.517/56.83 = 1.03 )
It's pretty obvious that no one dopes like that anymore though (except possibly in the Tour of California).
 
Race Radio said:
Armstrong has claimed he held 495 watts for over 30 minutes.

Same quote, same reply :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Race Radio
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1961

Here is a link for "I also cranked out 495 watts for more than 30 minutes", that is about 6.9 w/kg

Yes, that was up La Madone Pass.
It is obvious to me that his SRM was miscalibrated.
Also the figure was 491 watts, not 495 - private communication from Wayne Lim via personal and confidential message in may 99 as Carmichael had not yet "broadcast " the info. Wayne Lim (Allen's brother) used to come on tthe "king of the mountain" forum.

Why do I know his SRM was miscalibrated, you will know on my next post.

Now, the previous record holder that L.A. beat that day with a 45s margin was not an extraterrestrial climber, it was Rominger.


#54 07-01-10, 23:05

The next post.....
.
-------
That test of L.A. on the Col de la Madone was done shortly before the Criterium du dauphiné libéré in which the 5th or 6th stage was a TT up Ventoux.
Here are the results .
1. Jonathan Vaughters (USA) US Postal Service 56.50.9
2. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Casino 42.7
3. Wladimir Belli (Ita) Festina-Lotus 43.8
4. Joseba Beloki Dorronsoro (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 51.84
5. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 1.01.2
6. Kevin Livingston (USA) US Postal Service 1.25.5
7. David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis 1.40.6
8. Unaï Osa (Spa) Banesto 2.01.1
9. Tyler Hamilton (USA) US Postal Service 2.18.1
10. Roberto Laiseka Jaio (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 2.18.2
---

In 2004 Iban Mayo improved on that time by 1min (55.51) for which he exerted 6,75 watts/kg. I posted my calculation on the topica forum and nobody disputed it.

So, we can see, neglecting minor effects, that in june 1999, Armstrong could only muster about 6.75 W/kg times 55.85 divided by 59.03, i.e. 6.39 W/kg ( 454 watts for 71 kg, 460 watts for 72 kg).
The longer effort could account for a few %, but it is safe to say that on his 491 watts day up Madonna (joke intended), L.A. quite likely produced a bit less than 6.7 watts/kg, not 7W/kg.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Le breton; 07-01-10 at 23:09.


The figures here are my own calculations, not those of Portoleau-Vayer, there is a few % difference.

I know that later on I redid the calculation and lowered my Ventoux figures by something like 1-1.5%(from memory)
 
roundabout said:
Speaking of Ventoux, what would be the watts for Gaul in 1958? 5.9w/kg or so assuming that the course was more or less the same?

I remember looking at that question once for a message on a French forum, but they deleted their archives (velo101)

Basically, if analyticcyling.com was up right now, I would look at the extra energy required to climb Ventoux with a bike that is 9 kg instead of 7 and on a road with a Crr of maybe 0.06 instead of 0.04.

Anyway 0.06 as compared to 0.00 corresponds to climbing an extra 0.06 times 21.6 = 130 meters, ie 43 meters more than with 0.04,
while
an extra 2 kg for a 55 kg racer(?) is the same as an extra 2/(55+7) times 1600 meters ~ 51 meters uphill
i.e if those hypotheses are correct and if air resistance accounted for 10% (analytic, where are you) of the energy expendîture for Gaul, he was slowed down by 5.4%. i.e 62.15 times 0.55 = 3.5 minutes.

i.e a modern Gaul would do 62:09 minus 3.5 min = 58:35

Not unthinkable. That would put him at Moncoutié99's level, in the neighbourhood of 6.2 watts/kg

But of course to know the true 1958 Crr of Ventoux you would have to measure a comparable road still in existence today. I have one such stretch at my disposal right as I pass the border into France ( just about the worse piece of civil engineering(?) I have ever seen - it was redone last month, local style), but its undulating and not very suitable for precision measurements.
 
Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says that Gaul was 64kg.

Good work, but somewhat instinctively your number seems a bit high compared to say Coppi in 1952 on Alpe'd Huez.

Of course for that particular climb the only thing that seems reasonably certain is the time of 45:22 and not the length of the climb, Coppi's weight, height difference (memoire-du-cyclisme puts the finish at 1800 meters), bike weight etc.
 
Race Radio said:
Armstrong has claimed he held 495 watts for over 30 minutes.

In one of the Cyclesport mags that came out in late 1999 (just after Armstrong's first win), Chris Carmichael said (something like) that you need to be able to hold 7w/kg in order to win a GT.

I will try to find the mag tonight & scan it.
 
Le breton said:
...

In 2004 Iban Mayo improved on that time by 1min (55.51) for which he exerted 6,75 watts/kg. I posted my calculation on the topica forum and nobody disputed it.

So, we can see, neglecting minor effects, that in june 1999, Armstrong could only muster about 6.75 W/kg times 55.85 divided by 59.03, i.e. 6.39 W/kg ( 454 watts for 71 kg, 460 watts for 72 kg).
The longer effort could account for a few %, but it is safe to say that on his 491 watts day up Madonna (joke intended), L.A. quite likely produced a bit less than 6.7 watts/kg, not 7W/kg.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Le breton; 07-01-10 at 23:09. [/color] [/I]

The figures here are my own calculations, not those of Portoleau-Vayer, there is a few % difference.

I know that later on I redid the calculation and lowered my Ventoux figures by something like 1-1.5%(from memory)
LOL. I remember Armstrong saying that He hoped that other riders played by the rules during the Tour de France shortly after seeing how Mayo put that amazing time. 6.75 w/kg is something to be afraid of. Honestly I don't know what he meant by the rules. People were speculating back then that there was a new drug in the black market and Armstrong was probably afraid that he was still using his usual stuff.
 
roundabout said:
Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says that Gaul was 64kg.

Good work, but somewhat instinctively your number seems a bit high compared to say Coppi in 1952 on Alpe'd Huez.

Of course for that particular climb the only thing that seems reasonably certain is the time of 45:22 and not the length of the climb, Coppi's weight, height difference (memoire-du-cyclisme puts the finish at 1800 meters), bike weight etc.

Before EPO racers were not able to climb the last mountain pass as fast as if it were a TT. As a youngster I took pictures of Gaul preparing for a track meet, he definitely did not weigh 64 kg. 55 kg is more like it.

Bike weights in 52 and 58 must have been similar.

Coppi (gaul) weights have very lkittle influence on the watts/kg values.
 
Nick777 said:
In one of the Cyclesport mags that came out in late 1999 (just after Armstrong's first win), Chris Carmichael said (something like) that you need to be able to hold 7w/kg in order to win a GT.

I will try to find the mag tonight & scan it.

Not worth your trouble, people know that. Carmichael was just repeating what Ferrari had said.
 
Col de Joux-Plane (Dauphine Stage 6)

Porte-Wiggins group on Col de Joux-Plane (starting from the sharp bend) - 35 min 36 sec. VAM of 1603 m/hr (based on ascent of 981m) which equates to about 6.0 w/kg. Not too shabby for the likes of Porte and Rogers riding tempo.
 
Skibby the bush kangaroo said:
Porte-Wiggins group on Col de Joux-Plane (starting from the sharp bend) - 35 min 36 sec. VAM of 1603 m/hr (based on ascent of 981m) which equates to about 6.0 w/kg. Not too shabby for the likes of Porte and Rogers riding tempo.

Not even Rogers, just EBH and Prte
 
Skibby the bush kangaroo said:
Porte-Wiggins group on Col de Joux-Plane (starting from the sharp bend) - 35 min 36 sec. VAM of 1603 m/hr (based on ascent of 981m) which equates to about 6.0 w/kg. Not too shabby for the likes of Porte and Rogers riding tempo.

Thanks for the info.
Reading friday's paper at breakfast I realized Jx-Plane would be a nice excursion for the day : no risk of rain, sunshine, not very warm (16°C predicted). I had some issue with my back wheel, but it should be OK. Left the house a bit after 10, 10:15 maybe. In Taninges, at noon, I asked the gendarmes if I could waste time on getting some food become going on. They said sure, it was the first sign that they were more relaxed about cyclists on the road than I had seen them in the past. An impression confirmed later on: they are much cooler than in the past. In the valley the wind had been pushing me, but when I started climbing Jx-Plane at about 12:30, I really I didn't feel the wind very much, and as you know there are switchbacks so that if it had been like down in the valley I should have noticed it. Good for this thread I thought. Temp.was nice, maybe 18°C, sunny.

There were large numbers of cyclists going up. A very nice opportunity for an overage cyclist like myself to pass younger guys in large numbers :D.

I decided to stop at my usual spot, after 6.6km, at about 1220 meters altitude. There you overlook 14% stretches. A spot where I had seen Virenque flying in 2000, L.A. gritting his teeth and Pantani drowning. Virenque and Heras that day climbed it in 34:13.

BTW, the altitude difference for Joux-Plane is 1691-710 =981 meters and the
length 11.7km.

I'll come back later with watts/kg figures, now I realize that I need to go buy a couple things before the store closes across the border, in France (in Switzerland they have been closed for a while)

Got a nice shot of Feillu; of Wiggins also.